The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-11-03

To give us Jurisdiction under Section 709 OF the
Revised Statutes. because OF the denial Dy
State court of ahy title, right. privilege or I'M
munity claimed under the Constitution, or any
treaty statute of the United States It must
appear that such title. right privilege or imnau-
nifty was specially set up or claimed az the
proper time and in the proper way. To be re-
viewabie the decision must be against the right
set or claimed. AS the Supreme Court OF
the State was reviewing the decision OF
thu trial court, to make the question re-
viewable here it must appear that the claim
was made in that court, because the supreme
Court only authorized TO review the Judg-
ment of that court for errors committed there
and we do more. This is not. as seems
to be supposed By one OF the counsel for the Pc
titioners, a question of the waiver Of a right
under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the
United States, but question of claim LII not
set up or claimed in the proper court below, the
judgment of the State court IN the action Is con-
elusive far the right of review Is here con-
cerned. The question whether the letter. II oo-
tanned as claimed would have becn competent
evidence is not before US, and therefore no
foundation is laid under this objection Tor the
exercise of our jurisdiction.
ssAs to the suggestion by counsel for petition
ers Suies and Fielden. that Spies having been
born in Germany, and Fielden in Great Britain
they have been denied by the ,cision of the
courts below, rights guaranteed to them by
treaties between the United States and their re-
spective countries It is sufficient To cay that no
such questions we're made and decided in either
of the courts below, and they cannot be raised
in this court for the first time. We have not
been referred to any treaty, neither ars we
aware of any under which such question could
be raised.
sBeing of opinion, therefore. that the federal
questions presented by the counsel for the per-
tioners, and which they say they desire to argue
not In fact involved in the discrimination of
the case as it appears on the face of the record,
we deny the writ"
The decision of the court is unanimous.
How the Opinion Was Received.
Special to the Indianapolis Journal.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 2.-No one expressed
surprise when the crowd left the Supreme Court
room after the decision against the Anarchists
had been rendered. The announcement that the
court would pass upon the appeal to-day was
sufficient TO attract very large crowd but they
did aot.remain a moment aftor the words had
been uttered which sustain the sentence of the
Illinois court. The Hon. John Randolph Tucker
and Mr.. Solomon were the only representatives
of the prison ers present. The latter heard the
decision with q stoiid counterance. while Mr..
fuckers features evinced the disappointment
which he felt. Mr.. Hunt, the attorney for the
State of Illinois, wore impassive expression
upon his face, which was regarded indlca-
tion that he was not in the least surprised. Mr..
Hunt has expressed himself from the beginning
that the writ of error would not be granted. and
Mr.. Tucker Is believed to be the only one of the
prisoners counsel who really thought the appeal
would bear the desired fruit No here be-
lieves the Governor of Illinois will interfere
with the course Of the law. 1t is the belief of
even the most stauch friends of the condemned
will hang the 1Ith inst. in spite of all appeals
for -